Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

This looks really, really empty... now that I know the naming convention, I might have a go at some. Anynone know where a complete list could be found, eg. the AEC? Alphax (t) (c) (e) 08:22, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

go to http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/who/profiles/2004/index.htm, or for info on the electorates, go to http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/who/profiles/index.htm. Xtra 08:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Aha! Let us create a complete list. Regex makes this so easy! Alphax (t) (c) (e) 08:57, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

*snip* I hope no-one minds, I deleted the list from this page, as it already exists at Australian Electoral Divisions - and it made the page even longer! -- Chuq 23:57, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I don't know what I was thinking when I did that. Is there a Wikiproject:Australian Politics, under that or another name? This should go on their to-do list if there is. Thanks for removing that BTW. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 13:18, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

There's a list at Wikipedia:Australian wikipedians' notice board/Complete to-do/Electorates. Ambi 14:06, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I recently did a bit of tidying on Graham Shirley Strahan, but there's something bothering me: The article, in different places, gave his surname as "Strahan" or "Strachan". I went with the spelling in the article title because it was easier, but are there any Skyhooks fans hanging around here who can tell me which spelling is actually the correct one? --Paul A 03:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is spelled Strachan, Shirely is a nickname and mabye should be inverted commas.--nixie 04:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. While we're on the subject, is it "The Skyhooks" or just "Skyhooks"? --Paul A 08:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure, except to say that page names aren't supposed to include 'the' --nixie 23:19, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If it's part of the name, then "The" should be included -- "The Beatles" are at The Beatles and not Beatles. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name) for guidance. That said, I don't know what the proper name for the Skyhooks is. Geoff/Gsl 23:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Skyhooks offical site doesn't use the, so it probably safe to assume that its Skyhooks rather than the Skyhooks--nixie 00:23, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For 2005 they choose six fashion designers [1]. Prue Acton OBE, Jenny Bannister, Collette Dinnigan, Akira Isogawa, Joe Saba and Carla Zampatti AM. Someone familiar with Australian fashion might want to have a go at them. --nixie 04:50, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear. My to-do list grows, again. Ambi 09:57, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anyone feel like writing Western Australian state election, 2005? I know the Canadians are ahead of us in this respect, and it'd be nice to get articles on at least the upcoming state elections.

We also still don't have an article on Opposition Leader (and arguable favourite for the next Premier) Colin Barnett. Our article on Premier Gallop could also do with some work - it's among the shortest of our articles on state premiers. In addition, we have no articles on any members of the Legislative Assembly apart from Gallop. These could receive a few hits over the next month, so it'd be nice to get some decent articles - particularly on the election itself, Gallop and Barnett happening as soon as possible. Ambi 09:57, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The HECS page seems to need some significant updates for the new rules. The history section is a nice summary of tertiary fees in Australia except for not describing the introduction of HECS itself in 1989. Can our uni students update this article? You are more likely to know the rules than I am. --ScottDavis 01:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What new rules, exactly? (I mean, I have a bit of an idea as I'm about to start uni, but...) I'll see what I can do, but it'd be nice if you could point me in the right direction first. Ambi 02:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention interest on HECS, its called HECS-HELP now, and there have been changes to the various post graduate loan schemes. Everything appears to be here. I'm not sure how/where you'd incorporate the introduction of full-fees degrees --nixie 02:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

isn't HELP the loan for full fee students?

as such it wouldnt be part of HECS.

the main differences to HECS are allowing uni's to charge from $0 up to ?25%? over the recomended HECS price. and increasing the amount of money that needs to be earned before students need to repay HECS - i don't believe that any interest will be charged.

the HELP system i think is a low interest loan for full fee students.

i think that is correct. Xtra 05:05, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

HECS places are now 'Commonwealth supported', and a HECS debt is now HECS-HELP. The pricing is different - Australians can pay for courses if they don't qualify for a HECS place on academic merit (just like foreigners). HECS has always had interest, and I expect will continue to (although it's low interest indexed to cost of living, and was negative once). --ScottDavis 05:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he's apparently a British chemist. Does an entry on the Australian exist? - User:Lacrimosus, forgot to sign

Nope. David Marr (journalist) is redlinked from the Media Watch article, and should be from a few other places. Ambi 08:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Article now exists and this request is fulfilled. Discussion is left for the record unless it is a policy to delete discussion where the request has been fulfilled - can someone please advise? --AYArktos 22:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've written a couple of articles, Test matches in the 19th century (to 1887) and Test matches in the 19th century (1888 to 1900). The sources were all English, however, so it could do with some Aussiefication. I'd be grateful for any help from any Aussies who know about the subject.

Also, Aussie cricket fans may be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket. Kind regards, jguk 20:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To complement Category:High Court of Australia cases, I've added List of High Court of Australia cases, with a few redlinks of important cases in there. Feel free to add to this list at any time. I've done an article on the Tasmanian Dams Case already. As far as starting WikiProject:Australian law, I'm happy to take the lead if there are some people who can help out. Anyone interested? --bainer 07:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Very interested. Other Australian lawyers / law students that I've come across include Ambi, David Stewart and Psychobabble. Xtra has also offered to participate. See item /* Law */ , above. Right now, I'm working on a draft for an article on Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, and my (very rough) notes are here --SilasM 04:09, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A further thought. Before anyone gets too far into creating lists, stubs or articles for High Court cases, it might be good if we work out a template, at the very least for how to name the articles. I think you are on the right track, in your Tasmanian Dams article, to call the article "The Commonwealth v Tasmania" and insert a redirect for the pupular name. If we're going to start on prominent High Court cases, and especially in relation to the constitutional cases, we're going to quickly run up against the problem that many, many of the major cases involve litigation between the States and the Commonwealth, and many cases have identical names. I shudder to think how many "Commonwealth v Victoria" and especially "Victoria v Commonwealth" cases are milling around in the Commonwealth Law Reports. My first suggestion is that each article on a High Court case should have a name which includes its proper CLR citation. In the case of your Tasmanian Dams article, it would be moved to Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1. Any comments? If a consensus developes about this (or any alternative) template policy, then I think we are entitled to start a Wikipedia:Wikiproject Australian law page, and post it there. --SilasM 04:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An excellent resource for Australian law is the Australasian Legal Information Institute, High Court cases are under Commenwealth Cases & Legislation. Not sure how you pick which cases are notbale, good luck with the project.--nixie 04:33, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

have a Vic v Cth dsambig page. that can have links to the industrial relations act case etc. the individual articles could be called - Vic v Cth (Industrial Relations Act Case). etc Xtra 04:43, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is another way to do it. I have an aesthetic preference for my suggestion, but I don't see any particular logical reason for preferring one over the other. If your suggested method is to be preferred, then I'd recommend that it be complemented by a suggestion that a template prompt editors to include at the start of their article at least the CLR citation, and preferably the citation of other report series as well (eg, Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1; (1983) 46 ALR 625; (1983) 57 ALJR 450). --SilasM 04:55, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

p.s. notable cases can be found by flicking through any good constitutional law text book Xtra 04:45, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I created the project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian law. Feel free to discuss naming of cases at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian law/Policy#Case names. --bainer 06:43, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've created this article, mostly by copying from other articles. I don't really intend to do any more on it, so feel free to add/remove in your area of interest. The legislation section especially could use input from some lawyer-types. - Borofkin 04:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi all I could do with some help with a FAC, Test matches in the 19th century (to 1883) - which I'll probably rename History of Test cricket (1877 to 1883) once it's off FAC. I've spent quite some time getting it up to scratch, but it needs some more support/comments to get it through to FA status. Any help on WP:FAC would be very much appreciated, jguk 21:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There seems still to be some contradictions over which Australian political parties are classed as minor. I originally raised this issue on the talk page for List of political parties in Australia, where I noted that parties like the Democrats and the Greens had been moved from the minor parties section into the significant parties section. I have been creating and editing electoral division pages (eg. Division of Brand) and noting the best result from a minor party, which I have defined as any party other than the ALP, the Liberals or the Nationals (or their predecessors) or any other party that has held government in its own right. Thus, for Brand I noted that the best performance by a minor party was by One Nation in 1998 while for others it has been the Democrats. Fine and dandy, except for the fact that the information doesn't match up between the Division pages and the List of political parties in Australia page.

This is made even more confusing now that I see that List of political parties in Australia has under the heading "Significant political parties (and their federal leaders)", the sub heading "Minor parties include". So the Democrats and Greens are now seen as the somewhat odd minor significant parties. All no doubt confusing to the casual reader. Ideally, I would list parties like the Democrats and the Greens under minor parties on List of political parties... but if anyone has a better suggestion on how to fix this, I'd be pleased to hear it. --Roisterer 23:30, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

that sounds ok. there should be some kind of threshold requirement to be classified a major party. Xtra 23:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think a threshold requirement is a good idea, perhaps based on the percentage of votes recieved (data for the 2004 federal election here (House) and here (Senate)). For example, a threshold of 5% nationally would make the major parties the Libs, Nats, ALP and Greens (these parties broke 5% of total votes in the House and the Senate). All other parties would thus be minor parties. Also, I don't think that state-by-state variations should be taken into account since this article has national scope. --bainer 00:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What about

• Major Parties - many members elected
• Minor Parties - a few members elected or likely to be elected
• Micro Parties - not likely to have anyone elected.

Tabletop 00:39, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The problem with this is that the definition of "likely" or "not likely to be elected" is going to vary wildly according to political views, and this creates inherent POV problems. Once again, I suggest a percentage threshold (like I said above). --bainer 06:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

maybe have major party = party represented in the house of representatives (except CLP = minor). minor party = party represented in an australian house of parliament. micro party = party not represented n any australian parliament. Xtra 08:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Like Grey Power? Alphax (t) (c) (e) 01:45, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

How about if Major Parties are parties that have formed government on their own, or been the senior partner in a federal government (Labor, Liberal, and their predecessors), or in a semi-permanent coalition (National and Country Liberal, ie. there is an assumption of coalition). Minor parties should be those that have elected at least two members of Parliament at any level. This can include the re-election of the same person. So this includes Family First and the CDP, but not Socialist Alliance, or the 'microparties' in the NSW Upper House. Microparties can be everyone else. I'm also gonna change the Family First line in the list of political parties in Australia to list Senator Steve Fielding as leader, not Andrea Mason.

Would it be preferable to decide Major/Minor/Micro status on the basis of party membership? I think it would be best if it were decided on a mixture of things: party membership; parliamentary representation; percentage of vote recieved. --Cyberjunkie 15:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that would work. After all, the Democrats have had quite a low membership level since they were created. Plus, there's no verifiable information on party member levels. Braue

I've just added an entry on Cornelia Rau. New information about this is emerging every day. I'd like to continue adding information, but I'll be very busy over the next week, and will not have time to contribute. I'm hoping get the ball rolling on this. Cnwb 06:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

G'day! For those who don't know me, I'm Bumm13. I've been making U.S. city/place dot-maps as part of Wikipedia's Dot-Map Project (I'm from the U.S., by the way) that was started by Seth Ilys in March 2004. I'd like to lend my map-editing skills to Australia's city articles on Wikipedia. I've done some research into the situation, and I see that many of Australia's city/place articles are incomplete or works in progress. So I'm posting here at the request of Ta bu shi da yu to see what Aussie Wikipedians think about getting some dot-maps for their city articles and also assistance in completing incomplete articles.

Any input on my dot-map proposition is highly welcomed. Thanks! Bumm13 11:05, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) ^(talk)

I think the dot maps are a good idea. Is anyone able to help bumm out with finding geographical data? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:33, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I went and looked at some of the Australia geographical articles and it looks like most of the city articles do exist; it is shire articles that are much more incomplete. For now, that will be okay, as cities and towns are a higher priority, in my opinion. My primary concern involves dividing each state map into specific regions. Regions seem to be an agreed-upon state subdivision in every Australian state, but also seem to lack the consistency of, say, counties in U.S. states. I want to make sure that the maps I make are acceptable at least in terms of de facto accuracy, so feedback on this specific point would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Bumm13 04:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ya, that's pretty much how regions work. We have an odd geography due to a large part of our country being desert, and we have states and territories and a three tiered government, so it might seem a little wierd at first. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regions are messy, I think you'd want to look at boundries for local governments since they're official, like this map of Queensland local government boundaries. They probably exist for most of the populous states, I'm not sure about local government divisions in the Northern Territory.--nixie 04:38, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See also regions and local government boundaries in NSW, WA Vic--nixie 04:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm keep to assist with this, some of my attempts in this area can be seen at User:Chuq/Maps. I also have a map in Photoshop at home, with capital cities and some major regional cities marked, ready to generate png/gif format maps for each town. (My choice of colours needs a lot of work however!)

One thing I've found with the US county maps and the UK shire maps, is that the counties/shires are usually unrecognisable shapes, and don't offer context (ie. a map of the county within the state, for example). Also, while US counties are reasonably equal-sized (like Image:Map_of_Michigan_highlighting_Oceana_County.png, Australian local government areas vary greatly in size. A map of (eg) Victoria, with one of the inner-city council areas marked (eg. City of Casey), would be very hard to read (the city - and i mean a city council area, equivalent of a county - would be merely a dot). -- Chuq 05:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I understand the issue with urban/inner-city council areas. Dot-maps were never meant to address this issue, rather simply show a city/place's location within the greater context of the country's primary geographic subdivision (in this case, Australian states). Other maps are clearly a better solution for showing where a place within a larger city's metropolitan area lies. A city council area isn't necessarily the rough equivalent of a U.S. county, although such comparisons are never truly straightforward. Bumm13 11:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For completeness, the SA local government areas are at the Local Government Association website. However, as others have said, neither the local government boundaries nor the "region" boundaries are well-recognised divisions. The coastline is fairly distinctive for locating things, plus the Murray River and the major highways. It is also common to only use the southeast part of the state, as there isn't much north of Port Augusta or west of Ceduna. These pictures have too many roads for the purpose, the coastline needs to be heavier, and the Murray needs to drawn better. The red and green roads without the highway identifiers would be about the right amount of them. --ScottDavis 13:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anyone a fan? Jak Housden is up for deletion and I thought it'd be good if someone were able to contribute. Lacrimosus 22:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I started collecting some info about bridges and punts to add to the Transport section of Murray River. I thought there were only a few bridges (I'm from SA), and the Murray forms a significant barrier. It quickly became too long to put in the main article without being disproportionate. Do other Australians think I should make a new article, or insert into the main article? --ScottDavis 13:00, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

With only a single response, I've created Murray River crossings --ScottDavis 12:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is that we need to start for the WikiProject Perth, to compose about the things in Perth, Western Austraia? --Shinjiman 16:22, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have done Colin Barnett and tried to improve Geoffrey Gallop so that it is no longer just text copied from the ALP website, but it needs more work by someone in WA. I note that Liberal state leaders Bob Quinn and Rene Hidding still don't have articles. I note also that the Lawrence Springborg article is very weak. Adam 23:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How appropriate :). No seriously, I'll get on to that. . . Lacrimosus 03:30, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He has a website you can use. Is he related to Robert Springborg the Saddam apologist, by the way? Adam 03:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Adam. I've been after people to do this for ages. It would also be helpful to add Matt Birney to your list, seeing he appears to be firming as Barnett's replacement. I've now nearly finished writing seperate articles on every state and territory parliament (only Queensland to go), with matching member lists for each. It'd be nice if some of you could work on some of your local politicians and major ministers in each state - there are a lot of holes. Ambi 04:02, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can someone a little more thick-skinned give me a hand here? There's a guy who insists that at least half the article be dedicated to his theories about how ASIO was responsible. It really needs improvement anyway, but it'd be nice if someone could a) fix it, and b) fend off this POV warrior. Ambi 04:02, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is so shockingly bad that it's not funny. The article also needs a picture. Alphax ^τεχ 00:04, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Would a picture redeem the article, or make it funny? --SilasM 03:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A picture is definately needed; this section is utter bollocks though. Alphax ^τεχ 02:36, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I have contributed a piece on Elisabeth Murdoch. Adam 01:13, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bert Newton has been our supposed 'collaboration of the week' for what feels like about six months now. Is this a sign that a weekly round of collaborations on this list is just a little too ambitious? Maybe the feature should be retired for the time being. Certainly Bert should be. --SilasM 03:05, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps that most people are turned off by him? ;) Dysprosia 03:09, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we have enough people to do a weekly thing. Alphax ^τεχ 02:44, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Make it a fortnight or month. That's what a couple of the others have done. Ambi 03:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Make it a month. Can't type too much as have screwed up my hand. screw formatting! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:41, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've never enjoyed Bert and his TV spamming ways. Move him on. :)~~ -- Longhair | Talk 18:56, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since no-one else seemed interested I have taken a necessary axe to Bert Newton. It is now moderately respectable. Someone should try to find a public domain photo. Adam 07:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bert should be deleted as "collboration of the week". Why has this page been set so that I can't delete that line? Adam 02:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

View the source. It leads you to the template for editing of the to do list up top, which is here (and editable). I've moved this stuff to the Let's retire Bert section as well. This page is hard enough to read as it is without making it any worse. -- Longhair | Talk 23:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is up for deletion. Although the consensus at this stage is definitely to keep. This concerns me in that other Australian streets could be at risk. Lacrimosus 00:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Have voted. The nice thing about this board is that we can tell them what is a crap Australian article and what is a notable Australian article :-) Ta bu shi da yu 00:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. Do we need this?
2. Should we have it?
3. Is it against standard policy?
4. Does anyone have a thumbnail that could be used here?

Alphax ^τεχ 02:43, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I've been bio-stubbing a lot recently, and I've noticed several other countries already using such a template. It can be put to good use. Wikiepedia is growing fast, and the general list of stub categories is already way too large to be practically usable. Your idea of an Australian bio-template will be created sooner or later. It has my full support. Now who would we use as a thumbnail icon to provide that quick glance recognition feel? Does anyone have an idea on some instantly recognisable notable Aussies' for the thumbnail image?-- Longhair | Talk 18:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Paul Hogan, Ned Kelly, Steve Irwin, John Howard, anybody wearing an Akubra. Is the objective to pick some recognisable to Australians, or recognised as an Australian by the rest of the world? ScottDavis 03:36, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and created the template, and used a thumb of the John Howard image for now. Anyone with a better thumbnail (or a better choice), feel free to replace it. -- Longhair | Talk 01:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Russell Crowe, Edna Everage, Kylie Minogue, Mel Gibson, Rolf Harris were suggested on IRC. Alphax ^τεχ 00:12, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Does this apply to Australia? If anyone knows how it does (IANAL) the article needs to info to indicate as such. Thanks, Alphax ^τεχ 22:27, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

• This summarises the crown copyright situation in Australia[2]. It is complicated by digitization, for example material that was made over 50 years ago by employees of the government and was digitised by the National Archives or Library now is covered under copyright. Using NAA or NLA images in unauthorised ways can actulally get you banned from using their services. But I guess if you had some old governement reports or something like that the material would be fair game. --nixie 23:17, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The following link to a recent report by the Federal Attorney-General's department is helpful: Copyright Law Review Committee: Issues Paper. As with the Canadian system dealt with in the wikipaedia article, Australian copyright law has its foundations in English law. The Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (the Copyright Act) established the current legal framework in Australia and enacted in Commonwealth legislation a provision similar to s 39 of the 1956 UK Act.

In its issues paper the committee noted: Australian governments (Commonwealth, State and Territory), like most of their overseas counterparts, create and disseminate a wide range of material. This ranges from public announcements and media releases, legislation and other legal and parliamentary materials, reports, directories, guides and educational material, photographs, to specialised historical works, maps, plans and commissioned works such as biographies and art works. Under Australian copyright law, the respective government normally owns copyright in those materials where they are the creators of those materials.

In some of the material published by these governments there is a strong and identifiable public interest in ensuring its widest dissemination. In other material, such as general historical works, this interest is not as strong. The Committee also notes that the government owns copyright in a wide range of unpublished materials. Such materials would include submissions to Ministers, some databases and computer software. --AYArktos 23:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This website is also useful for understanding the copyright sitiuation in Australia, Australian Digital Alliance --nixie 23:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So... any Law students feel like adding to the article? Alphax ^τεχ 23:54, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Anyone have any thoughts on the identity of this Eucalyptus at wiki commons? It is labelled E. globulus, but it very definitely isn't that. - MPF 11:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe Eucalyptus polyanthemos ? Securiger 12:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the state museums or botanic gardens could help us out. Try this site: Australian National Botanic Gardens. Alphax ^τεχ 00:07, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately the IT services are (fairly) back online, which means I have internet access. Alphax ^τεχ 09:19, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Check out what happened @ http://www.adelaide.edu.au/waterdamage/ . Alphax ^τεχ 07:10, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Those of us who are working through Special:Uncategorizedpages have reached 'Au', which means a considerable number of articles related to Australia. In theory the people on this board should no how best to categorize these, so I am listing them here:

1. Australasian Bottled Water Institute
   • Added {{australia-stub}}. Alphax ^τεχ 09:38, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
2. Australasian Union of Jewish Students
   • Now in Category:Students' unions.
3. Australasian treecreeper
   • Now in Category:Birds of Australia.
4. Australia's Funniest Home Video Show
   • Now in Category:Australian television series.
5. Australia II
   • Now in Category:Sailboat Names and Category:Sailing.
6. Australia Standard Pallets
   • Now in Category:Commercial item transport and distribution and added {{australia-stub}}. Alphax ^τεχ 09:38, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
7. Australian Commonwealth ministries 1901-2004
   • Now in Category:Australian history.
8. Australian Communications Authority
   • Now in Category:Communications in Australia.
9. Australian Companion Rabbit Society
   • Now in Category:Pets
10. Australian Consumers Association
    • Now in Category:Consumer organizations
11. Australian Graduate School of Management
    • Now in Category:Universities in Australia
12. Australian Inter Dominion Harness Racing Championship
    • Now in Category:Horse racing
13. Australian Liberal Students Federation
    • Now in Category:Students' unions and Category:Australia ScottDavis 12:19, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
14. Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association
    • Now in Category:Australian trade unions
15. Australian Medical Association
    • Now in Category:Medical associations
16. Australian Medicines Handbook
    • Now in Category:Medicine
17. Australian Natives Association
    • Now in Category:Fraternal and Service Organizations and Category:Australian history--AYArktos 07:15, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
18. Australian Open champions (Men's Doubles)
    • Now in Category:Tennis
19. Australian Open champions (Men's Singles)
    • Now in Category:Tennis
20. Australian Open champions (Mixed Doubles)
    • Now in Category:Tennis
21. Australian Open champions (Women's Singles)
    • Now in Category:Tennis
22. Australian Plague Locust Commission
    • Now in Category:Government of Australia
23. Australian Prudential Regulation Authority
    • Now in Category:Government of Australia and Category:Finance.
24. Australian Schools Science Competition
    • Now in Category:Education in Australia and added {{australia-stub}}. Alphax ^τεχ 09:08, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
25. Australian Soft Drinks Association
    • Now in Category:Industry trade groups and Category:Organization stubs.
26. Australian Total Diet Survey
    • Now in Category:Healthcare in Australia and (nonexistant) Category:Diet. Added {{australia-stub}}. Alphax ^τεχ 15:30, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
27. Australian lime
    • Now in Category:Citrus and added {{australia-stub}}. Alphax ^τεχ 09:08, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
28. Australian megafauna
    • Added to Category:Lists of animals and Category:Extinct animals. Alphax ^τεχ 15:30, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
29. Australian permanent resident
    • Now an {{australia-stub}} and in Category:Australian immigration.
30. Australidelphia
    • Now in Category:Mammals
31. Australo-Papuan babbler
    • Now in Category:Birds of Australia.

-SimonP 18:55, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

That's all, folks!. Well done to everyone who helped. Alphax ^τεχ 15:34, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Great work, thanks. - SimonP 04:07, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Someone needs to look at this. Alphax ^τεχ 00:13, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Just because it's Australian doesn't make it encyclopedic, keeping this article about a local sporting organisation sets a terrible precedent for keeping entries on local sporting organisations everywhere (there are probably millions of them), very few of which are worth having articles for--nixie 00:38, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I started this article, but I'm not sure now whether that is the correct title - is it Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia or Chief Justice of Australia?

no, your right. Xtra 06:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia is correct. The other was a title Garfield Barwick arrogated to himself as a result of his megelomania. The High Court website says: "Anthony Murray Gleeson was appointed Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia in May 1998. At the time of his appointment he was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, having been appointed to that office in November 1988." Adam 07:44, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The commission held by the Chief Justice appoints him or her to the office of Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. The holder of that office is confined to legal powers and responsibilities relating to the High Court of Australia, with some minor exceptions. Contra Adam, I don't think we can entirely blame Garf for the alternative assignation. The term was used by William Cullen when welcoming Knox to the court as Chief Justice in 1919. There is some statutory basis for the term. The Pensions Act 1918 (Cth) provided for the grant of a pension to the "First Chief Justice of Australia". Having said all that, I would recommend that Chief Justice of Australia be redirected to Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. --SilasM 08:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS - Mate, you need to get into the habit of signing your comments. Cheers. --SilasM 08:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the shorter usage is more common in the United States - cf. Chief Justice of the United States. By the way, I've finished putting succession boxes through all of these. --bainer 13:26, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm in the habit, I just lapse occasionally. William de Warenne, 6th Earl of Surrey 08:50, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC). Redirected accordingly.

I am afraid that you may all be wrong (meaning I am right). please see s2A(2) GOVERNOR-GENERAL ACT 1974 (Cth) under "basic rate". It clearly states "the Chief Justice of Australia". Xtra 14:39, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But, as noted above, this was the time when Garfield Barwick, who had a predilection for the other title, was Chief Justice. The point isn't that instances of "Chief Justice of Australia" are impossible to find; it's just that they're not as frequent as "of the High Court of Australia", and if it was indeed the official title, you would not expect to see any reference to the "Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia" in any official work. Lacrimosus 21:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is John Howard the Prime Minister of the Governor General of Australia or the Prime Minister of Australia? Xtra 22:43, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

P.S. you can't get much more official than a Commonwealth Act of Parliament. Xtra 01:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Xtra, Acts of Parliament frequently give shortened or otherwise incorrect names for things. The derterminate piece of evidence is what the High Court itself says at its website. Adam 04:10, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

New from me: Australian Workers Union. Adam 12:08, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Excellent work, Adam! A very good article. Lacrimosus 03:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Chico Roll entry needs attention--nixie 00:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

After some frustrating googling I found that they are Chiko rolls. All you probably need to know is at [3]

Anyone who called them Chico rolls needs to be deported. (OMG I was just possessed by Phillip Ruddock). They are delicious and certainly an icon! Eat one today (have some unknown gastrointestinal disorder tomorrow).--ZayZayEM 07:42, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not quite sure why anyone would want to include it on wikipedia. I don't regard it as iconic. The originator of that article contibuted only that morsel of information and no other. The article links nowhere and has no particular context.

I must confess to not enjoying the product the one time I tasted it many years ago. --AYArktos 01:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I've never been game to eat one, though it is probably as recognized as a Tim Tam, and using that criteria it does have some potential for expansion.--nixie 03:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We dont seem to have an article on Baxter Detention Centre, which is unfortunate, since i'd quite like to link to it from wikinews. Some links in case anyone wants to give it a go [4] [5] The bellman 10:00, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

---

New from me: John Wren Adam 15:19, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apparently these guys are a pub rock band from Sydney. I haven't heard of them, has anyone else? Slac speak up! 08:05, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is also up for deletion. Any thoughts, people? Can anyone vouch for its notability? Slac speak up! 23:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can't vouch for the notability of the roadhouse. Looking at the article there seems to be an error in the reference tothe Blue Mountains. Surely should be Snowy Mountains. Seldom Seen Roadhouse is marked as a locality in my road atlas otherwise I would suggest merging it with a geographic stub article on the locality of Seldom Seen.

A picture of the roadhouse can be found at [6] associated with the comment dated March 2005 that the roadhouse was burnt by the recent bushfires but is still trading. This SMH article with picture refers to bushfires of February 2003 when the roadhouse was burnt out. --AYArktos 00:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the last few days a new category of Australian Mobsters [7] has been started as a sub-category of Australian Crime. Two entries have so far been been categorised: Squizzy Taylor and Mark Chopper Read.

The naming of the category is just on the margin for me - I don't think the word "mobsters" is an Australian word in the sense that we would apply to our own local thugs. For me it is a word associated with overseas - eg Chicago.

What does anybody else think?

As the category was set up from an anoymous IP I can't talk to the user involved.

PS how do you reference within Wikipedia the category page without making the page on which you are citing an article linked to the category? I have been using the external link to get around that problem. --AYArktos 22:18, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To link to category pages, put a colon just inside the double square brackets, like this: [[:Category:Australian mobsters]]. As for the naming of the category, they tend to call the organised crime scene "gangland" (down here in Melbourne at least) in the media, which sounds just as odd. Mobster has stronger connections to the Mafia particularly, so perhaps Australian gangsters might be a better name. --bainer 22:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps - organised crime figures works as well. Ambi 23:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I ageee, mobsters isn't a word we use here, gangsters would be better as per bainers suggestion--nixie 23:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another quibble - is Chopper "organised" crime? I thought he was more free-lance. Slac speak up! 23:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Mobsters" is a horrible Americanism, and is pretty tabloidy even in the US. "Gangsters is somewhat better but still slang. My suggestion would be Category:Australian crime figures. Adam 23:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More than this, "mobsters" doesn't reflect how professional criminals are organised. From what I've read in the newspaper on the topic (and yes, some skepticism is probably deserved) freelancing and "independent contracting" seems to be the rule, rather than the exception as far as the Melbourne underworld goes. --Robert Merkel 01:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adam's suggestion of renaming the category to Australian crime figures would seem to cover the issue of independence that differentiates Australian culture and values, not least in criminal activity as evidenced by Chopper Read and the current Melbourne gangland activities. --AYArktos 01:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New category page created - Category: Australian crime figures --AYArktos 20:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My apologies. While I initially was unsure of creating a "mobster" category regarding international organized crime figures, as several others had already been created under that title, I thought it would be better to keep the categories consistant. If you feel the name itself is inapprpriate then please feel free to rename or redirect to another category. Again my apologies for the misunderstanding. 209.213.71.78 20:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)